I know that some people will call me an apikorus for even asking this question, but here goes…

As we all (should) know, an eruv is only effective in a karmelis. It is not effective in a true reshus harabim.

According to some (most? all?) opinions, one of the requirements of a reshus harabim is that 600,000 pass through on a daily basis. That figure of 600,000 comes from the population that formed the camp in the midbar.

My question is this: That figure (600,000) was only part of the population. Levites (and kohanim, although they were very few in number), non-Jews, women and men outside the ages of 20-60 were not included in that count.

As such, shouldn’t the requirements for a reshus harabim match that population: Shouldn’t it be 600K non-Levite males between 20-60, or perhaps the required population should be much higher (2 million?) to account for the others who were present in the midbar?

Why do women, Levites and men outside 20-60 count for a reshus harabim when they did not count for the count on which that requirement is based?

R’ Moshe sort of makes that argument and says if 3 million people live in a square mil it is a reshus harabim.

Though note there isn’t some chazal that says the 600k rule. Rashi says it and it isn’t clear where he got it from. Of course Rashi is broad enough for us to rely on. But it isn’t like it’s an absolute limud of learning 600k from the midbar, it’s a big enough chiddush in of itself we can’t really stretch the chidush much further

I’m not sure about the population question, but from what I remember learning, there is a big mistake in your assumption – how often does there need to be this population? I learned that it needs to be once per year, not every day.
In fact, when R’ Moshe zt”l issued his psak about Brooklyn, he had a rule that we can estimate 1/5 of the population will be outdoors at a given time (during the day, obviously, not in middle of the night). Therefore, it would require a population of 3 million to meet the criteria. The population of Brooklyn was slightly below that number, but R’ Moshe said that since during the summer, many people traveled into Brooklyn to go to the beaches of Coney Island, it pushed it over the number required. This is obviously not every day, as it doesn’t happen during the winter.

See MB O”CH 345 s”k 23 who asks the question and says that we only count what the Torah specifically enumerates. There is an interesting implication according to the Maharal who says that 600K is a complete number containinhg 6 like six directions in the shaking the lulav, 100 and 1000. The Rabbenu Bacheya explains that if you take the first letter of each tribe usung Yosef and multiply them by 1000 when you accumulate it, you will get 597,000, 600,00 less 3000 that were killed at the Aigel.

It’s not true that an eruv doesn’t work in reshus horabim. If it were true then you couldn’t carry in your house!

What is true is that, MID’RABBONON, an “eruv” consisting only of four poles and four strings doesn’t work in reshus horabim. You need more than that. How much more is not clear, but certainly if the majority of three sides is made of solid mechitzos, and any road that is reshus horabim has doors installed that can close it off, then is effective even mid’rabonon.

DaMoshe, the requirement (according to those rishonim who hold there is such a requirement in the first place) is clear: the 600,000 must pass through BECHOL YOM. Every single day, not once a year.

R Moshe was very misinformed about Brooklyn’s population. He originally wrote with certainty that Borough Park and Flatbush alone have 600K each, and the whole Brooklyn has more than 3 million. This wasn’t the case. This is just one of *many* instances where his knowledge of the metzius was incorrect, because he was misinformed by those on whom he relied for such information.

As for where the whole 600K thing comes from, it is a mystery; we can only assume there was a girsa of the gemara that the Ashekenazi rishonim had, which did list such a requirement. (A girsa has been found that says there is no reshus horabim in Bovel, but not why.) But be it as it may, the overwhelming majority of rishonim and geonim held this way, so it’s difficult to argue that the halocho should not follow them. The most we can say is that someone who wants to be mehader bemitzvos should be machmir like the minority of rishonim who held there is no such requirement.

What Milhouse is saying is that when you make an erev, you’re making a kind of reshus hayachid, which I think is the point of an eruv. Obviously an eruv can be made in reshus harabim, otherwise your eruv that constitutes your house wouldn’t work either. It’s the eruvim created like we do around a city, without real walls, that’s objectionable, depending on whether or not we have a real reshus harabim.

DaasYochid, what’s the difference between a house and any other eruv? Every eruv is by definition a reshus hayochid. If you could not make a reshus hayochid in a reshus horabim then you could not carry in a house. The answer is that min hatorah of course you can make an eruv, even a flimsy one consisting of nothing more than four strings, in a reshus horabim. But the rabbonon said if it’s a reshus horabim you need more than that. You can make an eruv, but it must be stronger than four strings. Only for olei regel did they permit the bare minimum, passei biro’os, but for everyone else they said you need something more. Precisely how much more is discussed by the rishonim, but lechol hade’os if you have rov mechitzos, and tzuros hapesach to fill in the gaps, and delosos across the main road, it’s OK.

you’re making a kind of reshus hayachid, which I think is the point of an eruv.

I do not believe that to be correct.

The point is this — it is permitted to carry in a RhY. It is forbidden to carry in a RhY.

It is permitted (Min HaTorah) to carry in a Karmelis. However, the Rabban forbade carrying in a karmelis, lest one come to carry in a RhR. That being said, they also created the “loophole” when they created the prohibition — if you demarcate the area in the karmelis in a specified manner, then you can carry in it (presumably in that the eruv will act as a reminder).

That’s why an eruv is ineffective in a RhR — the Rabbannan cannot permit carrying in a RhR when it is forbidden by the Torah. They can, however, permit it when it is they, themselves who are forbidding it.

The eruv does not create a RhY. It simply creates an “area” within the karmelis that you can carry in.

WolfishMusing, you are simply incorrect. There is no such thing as “an area within a karmelis that you can carry in”; I can’t imagine where you could have seen such a thing mentioned, since it doesn’t exist. The rabbonon forbade carrying in a karmelis, and did not make any exceptions. An eruv is by definition a reshus hayochid. That’s its entire point and purpose. You create a reshus hayochid in a karmelis or a reshus horabim and you can carry there. But midrabonon the reshus hayochid that you make in a reshus horabim must consist of more than just four strings on four poles, whereas in a karmelis that is sufficient.

Milhouse:
“DaasYochid, what’s the difference between a house and any other eruv? Every eruv is by definition a reshus hayochid. If you could not make a reshus hayochid in a reshus horabim then you could not carry in a house. The answer is that min hatorah of course you can make an eruv, even a flimsy one consisting of nothing more than four strings, in a reshus horabim. But the rabbonon said if it’s a reshus horabim you need more than that. You can make an eruv, but it must be stronger than four strings.”

You are correct according to some (possibly most) Rishonim and Achronim. However, some maintain that a tzuras hapesach is not effective on a d’O’raysa level at all (such as the Bais Ephraim and the Chazon Ish).

“but lechol hade’os if you have rov mechitzos, and tzuros hapesach to fill in the gaps, and delosos across the main road, it’s OK.”

Not lechol hade’os. Some maintain (albeit we don’t pasken like them) that you would need delasos for every pirtzah greater than ten tefachim wide (Mishkenos Yaakov and a few others).

Milhouse is basically correct, there are many poskim who clearly state that the very concept that a צורת הפתח is not sufficient to permit in a רשה”ר is only a d’Rabonon. (See Shulchan Aruch haRav 364, Avnei Nezer hil Eruvin, Aruch Hashulchan. )

Many here are confusing by saying “Eruv” with eruv Chatzeros or a tzuros haPesach of 4 lechis only where we say אתו רבים ומבטלי מחיצות at least מדרבנן.

As per Chazon Ish, most cities nowadays are by default a reshus hayachid, as most streets that are basically 2 mechitzos עומ”ר end up at one point in the city within a third wall, thus rendering it as a true reshus hayachid, and therefore permitted with a tzuras haPesach.

in any case, brooklyn is surrounded by at least 3 mechitzos בנ”א by sea walls and gates עומ”ר and are not מפולשין ומכוונים due to the layout of the streets.

“Some maintain (albeit we don’t pasken like them) that you would need delasos for every pirtzah greater than ten tefachim wide ”

If i recall… The Tosfos haRosh clearly states that a pirtzah greater than ten is only a rabanon. Hence, the above mentioned achronim did not see the tosfos harosh, as it was only recently discovered, one may say had they seen… they may have agreed..

“As per Chazon Ish, most cities nowadays are by default a reshus hayachid”

To be clear, this is the Manhattan/Brooklyn-eruv-supporter interpretation of the Chazon Ish, right? Nowhere is there written evidence that the Chazon Ish called downtown Manhatten a “reshus hayachid.” I’m aware of the shittah to which you refer, and it’s your right to interpret it as you’ve been taught, but it’s a little disingenuous to make it sound like there’s an explicit Chazon Ish which states as you stated.

is there written evidence that the Chazon Ish called downtown Manhatten a “reshus hayachid.”

There is nothing to interpret, its clearly stated in his sefer terming it a היתר מרווח. On top of that, there are numerous letters and teshuvos written by the Chazon Ish to harav eliezer plotchinsky defending his above shitah.

GAON:
“Milhouse is basically correct, there are many poskim who clearly state that the very concept that a צורת הפתח is not sufficient to permit in a רשה”ר is only a d’Rabonon. (See Shulchan Aruch haRav 364, Avnei Nezer hil Eruvin, Aruch Hashulchan. )”

Actually most poskim maintain that a tzuras hapesach is sufficient on a d’Oraysa level. However, as I mentioned some Rishonim and poskim maintain otherwise, including the Bais Ephraim (who admits that according to the Rashba re Rambam, and the Hagaos Ashri a tzuras hapesach is effective me’d’Oraysa) and the Chazon Ish. So its not as simple as Milhouse argues.

“Many here are confusing by saying “Eruv” with eruv Chatzeros or a tzuros haPesach of 4 lechis only where we say אתו רבים ומבטלי מחיצות at least מדרבנן.”

I agree.

“As per Chazon Ish, most cities nowadays are by default a reshus hayachid, as most streets that are basically 2 mechitzos עומ”ר end up at one point in the city within a third wall, thus rendering it as a true reshus hayachid, and therefore permitted with a tzuras haPesach. in any case, brooklyn is surrounded by at least 3 mechitzos בנ”א by sea walls and gates עומ”ר and are not מפולשין ומכוונים due to the layout of the streets.”

I agree on both counts. Most people cant make the distinction that we usually don’t need to rely on the CI”s chiddush in large cities today.

GAON:
“If i recall… The Tosfos haRosh clearly states that a pirtzah greater than ten is only a rabanon. Hence, the above mentioned achronim did not see the tosfos harosh, as it was only recently discovered, one may say had they seen… they may have agreed.”

And so does the Hashlama and Haeshkol. However, the Mishkenos Yaakov (and Rav Aharon) claim some Rishonim maintain that pirtzos esser is d’Oraysa. (Rav Aharon adds Rabeinu Chananel.) However, the Bais Ephraim disagrees with these arguments. In any case, the three Rishonim that I mention Tosfos Rosh, Hashlama and Haeshkol, say clearly that the matter is only me’d’rabbanan, and the Mishkenos Yaakov did not have these sources.

Neville ChaimBerlin:
“To be clear, this is the Manhattan/Brooklyn-eruv-supporter interpretation of the Chazon Ish, right? Nowhere is there written evidence that the Chazon Ish called downtown Manhatten a “reshus hayachid.” I’m aware of the shittah to which you refer, and it’s your right to interpret it as you’ve been taught, but it’s a little disingenuous to make it sound like there’s an explicit Chazon Ish which states as you stated.”

You should learn the inyan prior to making such arguments. Even Rav Moshe agreed that CI would allow an Manhattan/Brooklyn eruv; hence he disagreed with the CI in order to proscribe these eruvin.

” Most people cant make the distinction that we usually don’t need to rely on the CI”s chiddush in large cities today.”

Also what they are confused about is that they do not realize that the Chazon ish has two statements, and the first one as described above is simply, no argument, the psak of most poskim Achronim. The CI mainly mentions it to get to the next chiddush, but the first layout was פשוט to him as the final psak a reshus hayachid.

(Also, another point his statement indicates, that his simple understanding regarding 600k is, that they need to pass through ONE street.

Although the מחבר clearly says ששים רבוא עוברים בכל יום nonetheless many פוסקים including ר’ משה felt that his intent was undoubtedly עיר שיש בה שיים רבוא as it said in Rashi. If I understood right, R; Shimon eider, and ylach”t R’ meir rosner שליט”א feel that I the road was intended to serve 600,000, even if not necessarily at the same time or even day it constitutes a רשות הרבים דאורייתא. I think that they have always expressed concerning London that even if one makes various strings and צורות הפתח one is nevertheless transgressing an איסור דאורייתא and is חייב כרת. Rabbi rosner also withdrew his local eiruv from the shefa Chayim when it opened to public traffic.

I assume the mekilim – including מרן הגאון ר’ חנוך ארנטרוי, אב”ד לונדון feel that the mechaber should be understood literally, and with a good eiruv one may carry. [Rabbi ehren trau is מחמיר for himself, but he has expressed numerous times the כשרות of the eiruv.]

I am unaware – due to pure עם הארצות – of the various קולות concerning more than ten אמות, however they were originally quite מקיל, later they fised it up. I thought it had something to do with ראשנים who hold that a צורת הפתח works on more than ten amos, unlike the רמב”ם and מחבר.

According to common belief Rabbi Ehrentrau is a tremendous boki in eiruvin, and is familiar with all the דברי החזון איש, alongside his vast בקיאות in many other סוגיות. nonetheless the majority of local רבנים have expressed the opinion that the ערוב is a ספק דאורייתא, so they obviously feel that even with whatever has been established it still remains a רשות הרבים דאורייתא

” If I understood right, R; Shimon eider, and ylach”t R’ meir rosner שליט”א feel that I the road was intended to serve 600,000, even if not necessarily at the same time or even day it constitutes a רשות הרבים דאוריית”

Please explain according to the above how an eruv in Jerusalem or Bnei Brak (that is technical adjoined to Tel Aviv) is permitted?

goldersgreener:
“Although the מחבר clearly says ששים רבוא עוברים בכל יום nonetheless many פוסקים including ר’ משה felt that his intent was undoubtedly עיר שיש בה שיים רבוא as it said in Rashi. If I understood right, R; Shimon eider, and ylach”t R’ meir rosner שליט”א feel that I the road was intended to serve 600,000, even if not necessarily at the same time or even day it constitutes a רשות הרבים דאורייתא.

It is not many poskim at all. Rav Moshe would not subscribe to R’ Meir Rosner argument. On the contrary he would disagree with R’ Rosner’s chiddushim. Rav Moshe maintains that the possibility that we should have 600,000 people traversing the streets of a 12 mil by 12 mil area, could only be if there are 3 million people living or commuting therein. On the contrary, Rav Moshe argues that we do not include those who are inside, and not traversing the streets. Hence if a city only has a population of 600,000 Rav Moshe would not classify it as a reshus harabbim, since shishim ribo needs to traverse the streets themselves.

Furthermore, Rav Moshe agreed that the Shulchan Aruch is referring to a street, and therefore, he claimed that the SA is denoting a sratya, in which case Rav Moshe agrees that the shishim ribo needs to traverse the street itself to be classified as a reshus harabbim.

I don’t believe that Rav Eider agreed with R’ Rosner.

To understand why Rashi make use of the word city in reference to the criterion of shishim ribo, we need to reference Rashi in Eruvin 59b:
דרך עיירות להיות פתחי פילושיהן לאורכם ורה”ר עוברת מפתח לפתח וחלוקה לאורכה … והני דרסי בהך רה”ר … ורה”ר זו מחברתם שכולם מעורבין בה
Rashi is informing us as to how cities were designed. Cities in the past had a main road that all residents used to enter and exit the city (because most cities were walled), and this thoroughfare was the reshus harabbim of the city. Consequentially, when Rashi and the Rishonim who follow him use the word city in reference to shishim ribo, they are not signifying that the criterion is conditional on a city but only that the main thoroughfare in a city containing shishim ribo would be classified as a reshus harabbim since it is traversed by its entire population.

In any case, where do we see that to accept the simple meaning of the Sulchan Aruch is considered novel?

“I think that they have always expressed concerning London that even if one makes various strings and צורות הפתח one is nevertheless transgressing an איסור דאורייתא and is חייב כרת.”

They made use of mechitos that are omed merubeh al haparutz. Those who still require that one should be stringent is treading on thin ice.

The question concerning the difference between GG and yerusholayim is very very valid, especially as the BaDatz Eida hachareidis and haGaon r; Chayim wosner shlit”a clearly spoke out against the GG eiruv despite the eiruvin in their pwn towns.

1) R’ meir Rosner has made his feelings clear that one may not carry on most the main roads in yerushalayim, including recently the sheaf Chayim road. As such one is limited to the loacal eiruvin, I think many are makpid not to carry on Shmuel hanovi or Bar ilan etc.

2) Even the eida hachareidis eiruv excludes kvish one, kvish nine [except for the tunnel to ramat shlomo] etc… the other rads have police barriers in place on Shabbos, as such at least on Shabbos they are very different and possibly this effects their denim even when the barriers are not in place. The same applies to b’nei b’rak, there are barriers by the coca cola bridge on kahaneman and in other places.

3) as far as I heard R’ ehrentrau shlit”a said that even with a tzuras hapesach at Spaniards inn he agrees that it is not a rambam eiruv.

4) R’ Yosef Babad – belzer dayan of Stamford hiil has said that it is unfair to compare townhouses with front and backyards to e”y where people live in 50 or 70 sq mr with a large number of children, many windowless machsanim, and many do not use electricity on Shabbos. as such he has said that the leniencies in place in e”y cannot be used in London.

5) Rabbi Roberts says that r’ shimon eider told him that the a406 and a1 are undoubtedly reshuyois harabbim, and cannot be compared to Israeli roads. he has expressed himself extensively on the subject, and repeatedly said that there are questions of de’oiraysa involved.

goldersgreener:
“1) R’ meir Rosner has made his feelings clear that one may not carry on most the main roads in yerushalayim, including recently the sheaf Chayim road. As such one is limited to the loacal eiruvin, I think many are makpid not to carry on Shmuel hanovi or Bar ilan etc.”

I don’t know why R’ Rosner is cited as if he is the posek achron. People should know that he is machmir in all inyanim of eruvin.

“2) Even the eida hachareidis eiruv excludes kvish one, kvish nine [except for the tunnel to ramat shlomo] etc… the other rads have police barriers in place on Shabbos, as such at least on Shabbos they are very different and possibly this effects their denim even when the barriers are not in place. The same applies to b’nei b’rak, there are barriers by the coca cola bridge on kahaneman and in other places.”

These are all excuses after the fact. Police barriers many times are not halachicly valid mechitzos.

“3) as far as I heard R’ ehrentrau shlit”a said that even with a tzuras hapesach at Spaniards inn he agrees that it is not a rambam eiruv.”

I don’t think that this is true regarding Rav Ehrentrau. In any case, we do not follow the Rambam. Almost all eruvin prior to WWII did not follow the Rambam. Today we seek all chumros regarding eruvin.

“4) R’ Yosef Babad – belzer dayan of Stamford hiil has said that it is unfair to compare townhouses with front and backyards to e”y where people live in 50 or 70 sq mr with a large number of children, many windowless machsanim, and many do not use electricity on Shabbos. as such he has said that the leniencies in place in e”y cannot be used in London.”

This is suspect, as most Belzer daynim are very pro eruv. There are no leniencies in EY, only accepted halacha.

“5) Rabbi Roberts says that r’ shimon eider told him that the a406 and a1 are undoubtedly reshuyois harabbim, and cannot be compared to Israeli roads. he has expressed himself extensively on the subject, and repeatedly said that there are questions of de’oiraysa involved.”

And I have spoken to other rabbanim in London who deny that Rav Eider said any such thing. Rav Eider maintained that there was no issue regarding d’Oraysa in London. In any cased, notwithstanding what Rav Roberts claims there is no difference between Israeli roads and London roads.

The bottom line is that there is no difference between EY and London. These are all excuses to deny the Charedim in London an eruv.

“The bottom line is that there is no difference between EY and London. ”

While I have no idea regarding the London roads, however there is an ongoing misconception by many that there is a concept of having a rh”r of less, larger, mega and humongous etc. If the issue in Jerusalem is that its a city containing over 600k, why is it that there are roads with different conditions regarding rh”r, as all that should matter is that its wider than 15 amos, once we have 600k within the city, unless you need 600k on one road.

Said that, i still don’t understand the differences between all these roads mentioned Do these roads have 600k traversing in one day or not?

Every subject is open for discussion, and good respectful discussion is very constructive, nonetheless all discuusions should take place within parameters of דרך ארץ and מענטשליכקייט. this is especially true when discussing the opinions f גדולי ומאורי הדור שליט”א.
הזהרו בגחלתן.

I have already written that the מחבר clearly says ששים רבוא עוברים בו בכל יום if one understands this כפשוטו then you are obviously right there is only one שאךה is there 600k daily or not. As the ט”ז and מג”א both agree that אין למחות ביד המקילין then obviously virtually every eiruv is kosher.

Nonetheless, there is a suggestion – primarily by הגאון ר’ משה פיינשטיין about brooklyn and the מנחת יצחק about London, to say that the מחבר does not refer too a literal 600k every day, rather, basically, the מחבר means a street which is מיועד for 600 k. Exactly what each pisek held, and exactly how one is קןבע the מציאות can be debated, and it remains הררים התלוים בשערה.

The עדה החרדית ערוב בירושלים עיה”ק excludes כביש המנהרות – 9 it also excludes כניסה לעיר and a couple of other roads.
as far as I understand, this effectively means that הגאונים ר’ יצחק טוביה וויס ור’ משה שטרנבוך שיח’ are excepting the שיטה of the מנחת יצחק and therefore make a point to exclude these roads. [ As a matter of interest Rabbi Weiis , Rabbi meir bransdorfer זצ”ל, abd Rabbi Roberts all consider themselves תלמידים of הגאון ר’ חנוך העניך פאדווא who also expressed opposition – at least verbally -for the London eiruv. ] על כל פנים this is the basic of the eida hachareidis who are clearly differentiating between London and yerushalayim.
The same applies in בני ברק the גאונים ר’ שמואל וואזנער זצ”ל and יבלח”ט ר’ ניסים קרליץ לרפו”ש have excluded כביש 4 from the eiruv, again R’ Chayim wosner has said that one may not carry in GG.

There is another big heter for roads, and that is by making אינו מפולש. the דברי מלכיאל clearly writes that a road that bends is not a רה”ר , police barriers לכאורה are at least equal.

BTW, in case you guys are convinced that I am a card carrying anti eiruv member, I left golders green twenty years ago. When I was there no one walked around wearing a tallis, yidden joined in the VE day celebrations, Rabbi Jakovitz was chief rabbi, and corporal punishment – including shoe confiscation – was still used in all schools.

“and the מנחת יצחק about London, to say that the מחבר does not refer too a literal 600k every day, rather, basically, the מחבר means a street which is מיועד for 600 k.”

Please reference the מנחת יצחק, the one I know of, clearly states that the 600k need to pass in the course of ONE day, though not EVERY day, but they do need to be passing at least on some (consistent) basis and then be מיועד for 600k on a daily basis, meaning they need to be close by, which is the case in Jerusalem, but never pass in a single day.

This is not his own shitah, he is basically quoting the Beis Efrayim, (which is quoted by the Marsham as well…) And so is it clearly the understanding of the Meiri in Rashi’s shitah, that 600k needs to be passing ‘occasionally’ in one day and “possible” every day.

The ‘סברה’ seems to be that if it never actuality passes then it it cannot be defined as a Rh”R of 600k, only once it does pass, occasionally (i.e. not as a one time occasion) , thus can ‘מיועד for 600K’ be defined as 600k – even on the days it does not actually pass, but nevertheless, you still need a road/street with 600k traversing within a single day.. which you do not have…

goldersgreener: “Nonetheless, there is a suggestion – primarily by הגאון ר’ משה פיינשטיין about brooklyn and the מנחת יצחק about London, to say that the מחבר does not refer too a literal 600k every day, rather, basically, the מחבר means a street which is מיועד for 600 k. Exactly what each pisek held, and exactly how one is קןבע the מציאות can be debated, and it remains הררים התלוים בשערה.”

Only the Mishkenos Yaakov maintains that מיועד is sufficient. Rav Moshe maintains that the criterion of shishim ribo is dependent on 12 mil by 12 mil , were the shishim ribo actually traverse the streets. The Minchas Yitzchak (8:32:1) maintains that the shishim ribo needs to traverse the street, just not on a daily basis (this is how he understands the Bais Ephraim).

See below link (on top of the left column) how he again explains that even if the 600K are right next to the road/place, according to the Shu”A it needs to be Bokim/Ovrim physically every single day on the very road in concern. That is why Machnei Yisrael was not concidered rh”R, based on the above rishonim.

if one takes the A! from beginning to end – or even finchley road – does one not actually 600k in a day? I find it hard to believe that the entire a1 does not have 600k. Surely every agrees that 600k do ot need to be ine one place?